Well don't go there then.

Author's note: Tonight's posting is sponsored by 'Tasty Old Wife' Cider of Old Wives Lees, Kent. A fine little cheeky monster which is matured in whisky vats, giving it a rather cheeky smoky flavour.

Anyhow, where was I? Ah, yes.

The price of a church wedding could soon increase by up to 50% under plans being considered by the General Synod.

The move - to be discussed later by the Church of England's law-making body - would see fees rise from £284 to £425.

Blimey, times must be getting tough. Bit of a bummer now, what with them not being able to demand a tithe from all and sundry.

The Church of England insists the hike is justified and says couples in some parishes could pay less under the plan.

Yes, one of the best ways of paying less is by not getting married in church.

No doubt some people will be up in arms about it. But really, I ask this question of people not just in this category, but of the women that want to vicars and bishops and homosexuals that want to be vicars and bishops.

Why?

Why do you want to be part of this organisation that doesn't want you as a member (in the case of the girls and the homosectionals) and will treat you with utter contempt when you do join (in the case of . . . well, anyone not called Rowan Williams)?

You can start your own church, you know, you don't have to join their's, and any church you set up will be just as valid as their's. Oh, they'll tell you it isn't, but it is, people said the same to the Catholics, Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Seventh day advent hoppists (Red Dwarf joke), don't even get started on the Amish, Presbys, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Coptics. Really, will one more make any difference?

You are completely free to start your own, and bollocks to the rest.

I've gone a little off the original topic here, but I don't give a damn.

If you want to love your God, then go and love him in your own style. God won't mind, the churches aren't his construct, no matter what those churches say. Any God that holds a pair of breasts or a fondness for bum sex against you isn't worth worrying about.

Life is too short, go, be happy, you don't need anyone's permission, grudging or otherwise.

Absolutely barking.

Omid Djalili makes the observation that when there is a controversy regarding Islam, the media will usually wheel out a chap nominated as a representative of the Muslim community who waves his arms about while ranting and raving and behaving like a general lunatic.

The hardline Jewish reps tend to be a little more palatable for Western consumption. Whilst they are just as hateful and hardline as their Islamic counterparts, they aren't so manifestly bonkers. Or are they?

A Jewish rabbinical court condemned to death by stoning a stray dog it feared was the reincarnation of a lawyer who insulted its judges, reports say.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

The dog entered the Jerusalem financial court several weeks ago and would not leave, reports Israeli website Ynet.


It reminded a judge of a curse passed on a now deceased secular lawyer about 20 years ago, when judges bid his spirit to enter the body of a dog.

These are important people in their community. This man, a judge, a person who is supposed to deal in fact, thinks it is the reincarnation of a lawayer who said a bad thing, probably something along the lines of 'you're all nuts, you lot.'

One of the judges at the court in the city's ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighbourhood had reportedly asked local children to carry out the sentence.

One of the judges what? Are you telling me that a community leader set up a bunch of kids to stone a dog to death because he thought it was the reincarnation of a lawyer?

What chance do these kids have?

Another demonstration of why religion is still a dark age practice where people demand that others live their lives by someone else's interpretation of a superstition and should be pointed and laughed at at every opportunity, and why I'm convinced that the best way to deal with both sets of nutters on this landmass is to starve them of cash and supplies and just let them get on with it.

There's no reasoning with people like this, none at all.

Worse than a warble glomist? Not quite.

Ecological doom and gloom has been something I've grown up with. As I matured and became aware of the world around me the big scare was the ozone layer. I stand to be shown evidence to the contrary, but I think that one was probably right, it seemed to me that there was a bloody great hole. The rush to ban CFC's seems to have arrested the problem, at least, I think so, it's a story we've not heard in a long, long time. I'm assuming that nature and this planet, being the marvellous things they are, will, in time repair the damage, maybe this process is underway? As I say, the story is such a blast from the past it is easy to forget that it ever happened at all.

However, I do remember that the scare at the time was that with the hole in the layer as it was, the entire populations of Australia, New Zealand and the southernmost residents of Argentina and Chile were going to die in agony of rampant skin cancer. I certainly don't recall that happening.

Ecomentalists love to catastrophise, and with good reason, it makes people give them their undivided attention and the contents of their wallets. The whole global warming/climate change gig has been running for a while, since I was a teenager, certainly. I'm now in my mid 30's. I distinctly remember being told that islands in the Pacific were doomed and that the only way you'd be able to visit St. Paul's would be by going for a paddle. All this was to happen in the next ten to fifteen years, unless action was taken. Now. I was scared, the house I grew up in in rural Kent was below sea level, with only the flat expanse of the reclaimed Romney Marsh between us and the channel, it was surely doomed.

We are told that CO2 emissions continue to rise, or at least do not fall to a level below those which were recorded some five years after the first catastrophic predictions were made. The house in which I grew up is still dry, no atolls have disappeared, I have yet to see anyone wear a souvenir St. Paul's life jacket.

Still the predictions of despair come, every time the same time frame is quoted, near enough to be alarming, but far enough into the future to allow redemption. I'm not sure if the countdown clock is re-set each time.

People talk about the Green God, and environmentalism being a new religion, and they are entirely right. The similarities are striking.

It may be a bit of laugh, but Harold Camping confidently predicted the onset of Armageddon this weekend, the fact that you are reading this is a demonstration that this didn't happen.

Well, he's at it again:

Evangelical priest Harold Camping has set a new date for the world’s end as he backtracked from a prediction that ‘Judgement Day’ was supposed to come last Saturday.


The US Christian, who made headlines for his outlandish claim that a selected 200 million of the world’s population would be raptured, has now marked 21 October 2011 in his calendar as the real date for the apocalypse.


The 89-year-old had previously stated that an earthquake – bigger than anything ever felt before - would strike each corner of the planet by 6pm local time on Saturday 21 May.


But according to Camping’s new end of world forecast, the globe will actually be engulfed by a huge fireball - exactly five months after the botched doomsday prediction.


Speaking of the failed ‘Judgement Day’ on his radio show last night, he claimed that 21 May 2011 was just an ‘invisible judgement day’ and that he understood it as a spiritual, rather than physical event. 


After hiding in a motel for two days, the Californian preacher admitted his Bible-based calculations were incorrect.


He said he believed rapture didn’t come because God decided to spare humanity five months of “hell on earth.”


During his hour-and-a-half radio broadcast, he said: “It won’t be spiritual on 21 October. The world is going to be destroyed all together, but it will be very quick.”

Most people are looking at this guy as some sort of nutter, many of them will be environmentalists scoffing at this man's, and his followers', credulity.

But stop for a minute. Consider the similarities.

He uses a text, which a mutual friend of mine on Facebook described thus:

Sometimes we take the Bible too literally, forgetting it's actually a composite work of fiction translated from a mishmash of defunct languages via Latin and therefore about as near to the 'absolute truth' as unsolicited email from Nigeria.

A harsh, if fairly accurate description. Say this to a Christian, (the same will also hold true of Jews and Muslims about their holy texts) and you run the risk of being shouted down. You see, it is all true, the animals in the big boat, the walls of the city falling down, the parting of the Red Sea, it is all true. It must be, because it is written here. The text cannot be challenged. It is, a-ha, gospel. Any attempt to question the content or the interpretation is, literally, heresy. It cannot be allowed.

Now speak to the warmist, question their data, their holy book, question the interpretation of their data, you'll get a very similar response. The denial of peer review is an anti-heretical device.


People who leave the fold are treated in a similar fashion to those who have turned their back on the Westboro Baptist Church.


They too have their Popes and high priests, people who are infallible. There can be no discussion.


They too confidently predict the end of the world. Some would suggest here there is a difference, the faithful of the Abrahamic religions welcome the prospect of the end of days, even if with more than a little trepidation. Enviromentalists want to avoid the scenario, but why do I get the impression some of them would derive great pleasure from treading water as the seas rise with an indignant look on their faces, saying 'I told you so'?


And just with Camping, when the predicted end does not materialise, they just pick another date. And another, and another.


There is very little difference between the methods of control used by religious organisations and the activities of the environmental lobby. There is very little difference between the two camps' desire for our cash and our unquestioning obedience to their pronouncements and decrees. Very little difference in the way they want to have the say in how to run your life.


Actually, there is one difference, Camping has at least had the guts to hold his hand up and admit his calculations are wrong. That is a confession I've yet to hear coming from the Green Church.


Save resources, water, food and energy, reduce waste. It makes sense on a personal and national economic level, but don't dare preach to me and spread your baseless tales to get what you want, you just look like these guys:

Update:

American Thinker has had similar thoughts.

For the people.

Twitter was alive last night with talk of events down at the council chamber where Lambeth council do their business. There have been a number of demonstrations against the cuts to public spending which are planned by the council and things came to a head last night when, well, I'll let 'uncutter' at Indymedia London take over:

Lambeth town hall in Brixton was taken over and occupied by protestors as the council met to vote through budget cuts of tens of millions of pounds. Hundreds of people gathered outside the town hall (as they'd done previously two weeks ago) and at around 7pm took over the chamber chanting "This is what democracy looks like" and "No ifs, no buts, no public services cuts!", before holding a people's assembly.

After withdrawing the council members met under a police guard to vote through the cuts. The occupation ended at around 9pm as people marched out after 2 hours of discussions and speeches at the 'people's council'.

This sort of thing chills me to the bone. I always get very uneasy when activists and politicians talk about 'the people'. I'm afraid that in a population of 272,000, a group of hundreds does not represent democracy, it does not even represent double figures of the population in terms of percentage. To try and pass it off as democracy is misleading.

I'm not going to get into the whole Keynsian discussion again, but I will state that I do support public spending cuts, because there is so much that goverment is involved in. that it has no business doing. I do not trust the politicians and civil servants to cut where the fat is, though. They will always protect their own empires and pet projects.

A 'people's council' (sic) does not represent the people. It never can, even the most representative, even handed and well regarded assembly cannot represent the people, it can only represent the majority. I am not convinced that a hastily convened peoples' council in Lambeth is representative of the majority. This is a term used to marginalise and stigmatise people. What we saw last night was a trailer of things to come, or things that have happened elsewhere. A group of people, through force and violence, establish themselves and then claim to speak for 'the people' as if the population is one homogenous mass with identical wishes, desires and aspirations.

This is always a mistake made by authoritarian (mainly left-wing) regimes, people are individuals. What you are doing is trying to project your view of what you think the people should be onto that population. You believe that your ideas and policies are right. Well, I think the same of mine, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't hold them, the same holds true for you. The difference between us, is that I do not seek to impose my vision on others. What happens when people do not share you views, do not want your vision? We've seen it time and time again, Stalin, Hoxha, Pot, Mao, all ruled in the name of 'the people'. How many of them were the wrong sort of people? How many of them were imprisoned, executed and subjected to horrific treatment as a result? Kim Jong-Il rules in the name of the people. I didn't see any election, he was annointed. What do the people think of him? I'm sure his approval rates are through the roof, his population wouldn't dare express anything but satisfaction. What about Gaddafi? Ask him this morning, he'll still tell you he's ruling in the name of the people, it is the enemies of the people who are stirring up trouble, the real people love him. So much do they love him, he would submit, that they are happy that 10,000 lie dead on the streets of Libya. This is what rule in the name of the people looks like.

Let us not kid ourselves here. When you claim you are acting for the people, you are using it as a crutch to prop up your own crumbling credibility. Oh, you know that the majority follow you. You know you have the support of tens of thousands in your borough. You know that everyone is up in arms at the cuts.

Everyone? He asks with eyebrow raised in a questioning fashion.

Well, everyone that counts.

Ah, there we go. No. Not everyone, otherwise in the recent general election your lot would have found themselves with an increased majority. That, no matter how flawed, how un-representative, is the closest we have to democracy in this country. And when people stop counting, that is where the trouble begins.

I'm not suggesting that we're about to see RAF air strikes on the population of Brixton, but unelected, unaccountable people make odd decisions and have, what appears to me, a skewed view of the world. I'll give you an example.

I was watching the first episode of Heston's Mission Impossible on C4 the other night. (The link is to the 4od player) I like Heston, he is imaginative, passionate and practical. His series on the overhaul of the Little Chef menu was very good. In this, the first episode of his new series where he does the same to different sectors of the catering industry, he was working his magic at Alder Hey hospital. No hectoring and lecturing in the style of Jamie Wotsisname here, just getting on with the job.

Notes from a hospital bed is an established critique of the terrible food on offer in our hospitals, so head over there, and you'll see the form guide. Needless to say, the food given to the kids in the hospital was terrible. Without wanting to come over all lisping and mockney, surely, kids in hospital need decent scran to aid their recovery? Yet they were served dross and plates were returned, untouched. Parents, who have paid for this food, without the option to opt-out, in the form of their taxes, were having to bring in grub for their kids. It is a story reproduced throughout the NHS.

In the first portion of the show, Heston went to the kitchens to investigate and was shown a menu, it looked alright, it transpired it was for the staff canteen, public restaurant and (I really couldn't believe this) outside functions. The head of catering stated that 90% of food prepared in the hozzie kitchens was fresh, from scratch. The 10% excluded? Yes, the children. The group that is the hospital's enitre reason for being. Out of a cooking staff of 14, only two were making the childrens' food. 'Welcome to the NHS' was the response from the head of catering.

He would maintain that he is absolutely acting in the best interest of the children. However, there was no communication between the kids and the kitchens.

Gaddafi, Kim and the Lambeth Peoples' Council would maintain that they are absolutely acting in the best interest of the people. However, there is no communication between the people and the government.

Of course, those occupying Lambeth council chamber last night would say they were different, just as every unelected, unaccountable, dictatorial regime that has gone before is different. This time it will be different, this time we're not the same as all the others, we care, we know what is wrong, we know the answers. Every time the end result is the same.

When you invoke the name of the people, you are hiding behind a legend, in the same way that Westboro Baptist Church invoke the name of God when they indulge in their revolting homophobic activities. When the Islamic fundamentalists bomb innocent people, or beat, maim and execute people, they do it whilst hiding behind the shield of an unspeaking God, you would no doubt condemn their actions, yet from where I'm sitting, you don't look so different when you hide behind the shield of a silent supposed majority.

No, you'll get no support from this quarter.

The obligatory religious bit.

I am no theological historian, but even I know that when Augustine was sent over to Kent to start the conversion of the population to Christianity, he faced an up-hill battle.

The old Celtic and Saxon polytheistic beliefs were really deeply ingrained, and people were unsure about this new belief structure. I should imagine that many received the 'good news' with the sort of scepticism that most of us would reserve for the dogma of Scientology.

The Romans had had a couple of experiments with the calendar, more, I believe, in a drive for accuracy and efficiency than for any hard and fast religious reasons, but the devotees of the old Celtic and Saxon religions measured their days by the passage of the sun, moon and seasons.

The problem for the church being that whilst many may have converted, probably just for five minute's peace, (they were most likely fed up with the spineless insipid missionaries knocking on the door of the hovel, quoting selected lines of Latin at them to prove some point which didn't really make sense to them anyway, and leaving parchments explaining how believing in this Jesus chap would explain the horrible stuff that was going on in the village and give them some comfort, which they couldn't read.), when the big important stuff happened, they reverted to the old ways.

Rollo (not the kid's TV character boy-king, but the ancestor of William the Bastard Conqueror) was given the province of Normandy, he was given it on two conditions; firstly that he'd stop sending raiding parties into France, as it was getting on everyone's tits, and secondly that he converted to Christianity as it was what all the cool, progressive, cutting edge 10th Century European leaders were doing. Come his death, somewhere in the late 920's, he displayed a superb capacity for pragmatic cynicism by having a hundred Christian devotees beheaded in front of him in his death bed, to appease the old Norse gods he had followed. Then, just to make sure, he made sure that the Christian organisations were given a shit load of gold, to appease them for the fact that he'd just offed a hundred or so of their mates.

Of course, the general population didn't really have the contacts and resources to slaughter a load of people and then give out a ton of cash in recompense, but when the landmarks of the year rolled around they'd still adhere to the old ways.

So when the shortest day came around, when the Sun reached its lowest point in the sky, they'd have a little celebration to mark the fact that the days would now start to get longer. But there was no room in the church calendar for this sort of stuff, it had to be changed. But how to do it? Well, of course, that was when Christ was born. (As an aside I saw a programme on one of the satelite channels a while back in which a historian was saying that the Roman census was carried out in the summer, so there would have been no race to Bethlehem in December.) So, you can have your little celebration, we'll just come in and change the reason for it.

Similarly when Spring rolls around, and everyone's thoughts turn to eggs, bunnies and little fluffy chicks, it has nothing to do with nature coming out of hibernation, it's all to do with the death and then, then, (this is the good bit), the re-birth of Christ. At the same time of year? What are the chances? You've got to hand it to the church, it's a great bit of marketing.

So when the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton gets involved in a story like this:

A bishop has urged parents not to let their children dress up in ghoulish gear in the run up to Halloween.

The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, wants to reclaim the festival as a Christian celebration.


He suggested children should dress up as saints rather than traditional Halloween garb.

In the Christian calendar, Halloween falls on the day before All Hallows' Day, a day to honour all the saints.

 The Rt Rev Conry said Halloween had "no meaning to it whatsoever" and was a waste of money for parents.

He's completely forgetting that people have been marking the point in the year when the trees lose their leaves and the plants die back, or at least stop growing, for thousands of years. This is why people dress up as ghosts and skeletons, it is a marker of death in the natural cycle. And what does it say about us that 1400 years after death of Augustine that when the big markers roll around, we still go back to the old ways to recognise the landmarks?

Perhaps that marketing campaign by the church, almost one and a half thousand years in the running, hasn't been as effective as they thought, because they are still fighting to stop people celebrating in ways that we've done since before the Roman conquest. Of course, the difference now is that the church can't have us shunned, fined, imprisoned or put to death for failing to conduct ourselves in a manner which they find acceptable.

No, it would appear that that particular little perk has now passed to the adherents of the green church and the anti-smoking/drinking/eating church. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it looks like Rome and Canterbury's loss is their gain.

Wow, what an eye opener.

I'm too often negative on here. But then there's a damn sight more to attack than there is to defend in this world if you ask me.

I'm normally very hard on religion, or at least religious organisations, but on this occasion I'm going to cut a bloody huge length of slack.

I've been enjoying the series run by Channel 4 on a group of Amish teenagers who have been over in the UK on an activity which apparently plays a very important part in their culture. At first I thought this was going be another mawkish freak-show, but the Amish youngsters have been portrayed in a very good light, and I've found the series (the third episode of which was this evening) to be very thought provoking.

I think the point of the show, which is available on 4OD for those of you who may have missed it, is to give us an idea of how someone from an alien culture views our society. The Amish are ideal for this purpose, they speak English but are about as far removed from our culture as you can get without having to rely on people who spend their time ranting and raving on the street about demons whilst burning flags and throwing shoes at people.

But what has struck me has been the Amish themselves, rather than their views on us. They don't go into too much detail about the Amish, the usual, no electricity, no TV, big families, funny beards, horses, but nothing of any great substance.

What is clear is that here is a community which is completely at peace with itself. Crime is almost unheard of (barring one fairly major incident recently), the respect between neighbours is remarkable, and in the case of barn raising, it would seem the Amish really like their barns, the whole community will turn out to help out with the raising and have a bit of a party, as much as being Amish allows a party, to celebrate.

The kids are schooled within the community in their own schools, or at home. It is obvious they love one another and are completely devoted to their families. The result? From what I've seen of the kids on the TV show, educated, compassionate, friendly, honest and thoroughly decent people.

These are the sort of people you would love to have move in next door to you, they seem generous and willing to help, without knocking on the door every ten minutes and they certainly don't seem to pry into others' lives.

The one thing I do have an issue with is the whole religion thing. They set great store by the bible and their submission to God's will. I've no time for organised religion, I've stated before that if I were God, then those who claim to speak for me would be first in the line when my smiting trousers came back from the dry cleaners.

But that being said, whilst it is obvious that their faith is the single most important thing in their lives, there doesn't seem to be any desire to stamp their feet and demand rights or special treatment. You don't see Amish preaching on street corners or knocking on doors trying to convert people to their truth. Not once has one of the Amish youngsters been judgemental about those they have been staying with, and only once or twice expressed alarm or unease over what they have been exposed to, and that in voice over rather than on camera.

Their isolationism appears to give them a refreshing view of the world. They may not know who Marilyn Monroe or John F. Kennedy are, they may be completely divorced from the politics of the country they live in, but it just doesn't matter to them. They have their own community and leave everyone else alone.

I've often heard them described as being secretive. But I don't think that's fair, this sounds like a name to slight them, make them seem as 'other', don't trust them. They don't want to be around us. I've not seen anyone secretive, I've seen people happy to discuss their way of life and beliefs, they're just not about to scream and shout about it. They don't mind if we take an interest or not, it doesn't matter to them. They don't care about our way of life. They're not making a judgement on us, it just isn't important to them. All that is important is surrounding them.

As far as organised religion is concerned, the Amish faith is probably the least organised one I've seen. I don't mean they're some kind of bumbling amateurs, it just seems to me that the practice of the faith is left to the individual church, family even person.

And then the clincher, before the kids are baptised into the church, they are told to bugger off, see the world and decide if their baptism is really what they want. What other religion does that? Which other sect asks those about to be baptised, 'are you really sure this is for you?'

This sounds like the most Libertarian religion I've ever come across, existing in a community which displays many classic examples of Libertarian community living. Their habit of eschewing technology, alcohol and tobacco would drive me up the bloody wall, but from what I've seen the Amish have a very enviable life.

But of course, the Amish would point out very politely and gently, and only if I asked them their opinion, that envy is a sin.

The One That Was Waiting. . .

Didn’t take long, did it?

I’ve been waiting for the clangers to drop, and now they’re dropping. It was only a matter of time until this new administration proved itself to be as hopeless as the one that came before.

First there was Oiky Gove’s arseing up of the school lists. Nice one. Too soon to be sacked, I would think. That, and the fact that he’s one of Dave’s star performers. God help them. 13 years they’ve been itching to get back in, and the first opportunity they get, they screw it right up.

And people wonder I have so little faith in the State organising stuff. It’s because of things like this. Just because one is an elected MP and appointed by a bloke who didn’t do enough to win an election that a flatulent amputee giraffe could have won, doesn’t mean that you’re actually any good. Walking into a government office, and sitting in a government chair, behind a government desk doesn’t mean what you do will be any good. People don’t seem to realise this, I have friends who really do believe that if the government takes control of something, it will, somehow, be alright in the end.

I believe that if the government takes control of something, it will, inevitably, a twisted, burning wreck before Countdown goes on air that afternoon.

Then, we have the farce of Clegg’s repeal act. I could bang on about it, but why bother when two of the best in the business, Leg-Iron and Dick Puddlecote, don’t just hit the nail on the head, they drive it through the wood, the workbench and into the floor.

It makes me angry, but what really exasperates me is the low level, mean spirited and small minded idiocy that pervades our lives on so many levels.

I couldn’t care less what you believe, I have no objections. Two caveats; don’t restrict anyone else’s activities, don’t try and make me sing your hymns.

Even worse, when morons, no doubt well intentioned, go and restrict other peoples’ activities on behalf of people who are quite capable of making judgements for themselves. You could pick from a plethora of examples, but let’s take this one from Stoke on Trent Council.

Swimming lessons in some Staffordshire schools should stop during Ramadan to ensure Muslim pupils "do not swallow water", a council has suggested.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has issued an 11-page Ramadan guide for schools to help pupils who may be fasting when the school year starts in September.

It said swimming was acceptable to Muslims but posed a high risk of swallowing water that may break a fast.

Islam requires Muslims to fast from dawn until dusk for one month per year.

OK, so if the Muslim parents or indeed the Muslim child decides that they don’t want swimming on the agenda, then fine, don’t go. I wouldn’t expect them to be penalised or punished for it. That’s what you believe, then that’s fine. It has no adverse effect on anyone else.

But no, you see, you can’t have that.

Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation.

No-one must be allowed to swim. If denying everyone a swim isn’t a barrier to full participation, then I don’t know what is.

I despair, I really do despair. It is precisely this sort of action which means that people of different race, religion, sexuality or any other quality which is relevant only to the individual concerned, will only ever look upon the other with resentment and mistrust.

I fear we can elect as many new politics, coalition governments we like, it will make no difference, the bastards have taken over, I really don’t see what we can do about it, all the time people are scared of being branded racists and Nazis.

The One That Is Going Thieving. . .

I’m going to nick a load of lead and gold and silver.

Apparently it’s OK to steal, as long as you do it from a large organisation. Well, there are few larger than the established Church of England.

Father Tim Jones, parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, said stealing was a "better moral thing to do" than robbery or prostitution.

But probably worse than parking over the lines of a bay or leaving your bin lid open.

Father Jones has defended his remarks and said such action was "dreadful" but sometimes people's only option.

The priest's comments were made in a sermon to his congregation on Sunday where he said stealing from large national chains was sometimes the best option for many vulnerable people.

He said: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

Would it be considered bad form for me to attend his next service and pocket the contents of the collection plate as it makes its way around?

Remind me what was that Seventh Commandment (in Christianity)?

Oh yes, You Will Not Steal.

Can’t this moron be arrested for incitement?

The One That Is More Equal Than You. . .

So the political backlash against the decision of the Swiss to ban the construction of minarets has started.

Cards on the table. I don't much care for Islam. Neither do I much care for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. They are all vessels for the perpetuation of bigotry, hatred, intolerance and control.

You can keep them. You can follow them, don't expect me to. Don't try and force it down my throat. Keep it to yourself.

I have no problem with the Swiss banning the construction of minarets, just as I would have no problem with the Swiss banning the construction of church towers with bells. If I had a problem with it I'd not go to Switzerland and I'd probably boycott toblerone and Swiss army knives.

I do enjoy playing Football Manager. I wonder if I would be allowed to rig a PA system that sent out a call for the faithful to come to play whenever I booted it up? No? Didn't think so. If people follow a religion, they tend to know when the services are, so probably don't need bells and wailing to summon them. For those who don't follow the religion, bells and wailing are just an annoyance - noise pollution.

Note that the Swiss have not banned the construction of Mosques, nor have they banned the practice of the religion, they just don't want the minarets. Well, it is their country and their decision to make.

The politicians, even in Switzerland, don't like it. The conspiracy theorist in me (who is starting to grow) thinks that it is not because it hurts the poor old Muslims, it is because politicians are uneasy with the idea of the public ushering in arbitrary and ridiculous bans. That is the job of the government, councils and un-elected officials.

Of course, they can't couch it in those terms, so they have to attack from a different angle:

A decision by Swiss voters to ban the construction of minarets poses a risk to Switzerland's security, the country's foreign minister says.

Micheline Calmy-Rey said the Swiss government was "very concerned" about the ban, adopted by voters on Sunday. "Each limitation on the co-existence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security," she told the European security body, the OSCE.

"Provocation risks triggering other provocation and risks inflaming extremism," Mrs Calmy-Rey said at the OSCE meeting in Athens.

I wasn't aware that extremism was a problem in Switzerland. No matter, the people have spoken, and that must be challenged because they are endangering their own national security, according to some woman who looks a bit like her from Swing Out Sister.

The UN has waded in as well:

A top UN official has called the ban "clearly discriminatory".

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the ban was "deeply divisive" and at odds with Switzerland's international legal obligations.

This is the same UN that passed a resolution banning any criticism of Islam. They didn't do this for any other religion. You were talking about discrimination? How is this at odds with international legal obligations? Are we obliged to allow the construction of minarets in Western Europe?

If so, how will an application for planning permission for a pretty little Saxon church in downtown Riyadh be received? Will the Iranians allow the construction of a reproduction of Salisbury Cathedral in Tehran? No. Didn't think so. It cuts both ways.

And then the Muslim leaders:

Muslim leaders across the world, as well as those of other faiths, criticised the minaret ban as a blow to religious freedom.

What's the phrase? 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' I think that's the one.

More from Micheline Calmy-Rey:

She said if an appeal against the referendum was lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, it would be up to the court to decide on its legality.

Up until such time as a referendum from the Swiss people tells the ECHR to go stick its head in a pig.

The One That Says It Isn't All About Killing. . .

We are told time and time again that Islam is a religion of peace. It isn't.

That's not an attack on Islam, but all three of the big religions in Europe, Mid-East, Africa and America. I can't comment on the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confuscians, Sikhs or Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monsterists as by and large they seem to keep themselves to themselves.

The big three, just as in British politics, are agents of hate, intolerance, control and oppression. But we hear time and time again that Islam, especially, is a religion of peace.

OK.

The winners of a quiz organised by Somali Islamists have been given weapons and ammunition as prizes.

Prizes included AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and an anti-tank mine.

The quiz ran during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan in the port city of Kismayo, and included questions about the Koran and Somali geography.

A representative for the al-Shabab militant group said the quiz aimed to stop young men from wasting their time and focus on defending their territory.

"The reason the young men were rewarded with weapons is to encourage them to participate in the ongoing holy war against the enemies of Allah in Somalia,"

Yes. That sounds very peaceful.

Then there's this:



(A tip of the hat to OH for drawing my attention to it.)

Yes. That sounds very peaceful as well. Calls for executions. The very epitome of a civilised, rational and peaceful society. So you don't like him and don't like what he has to say. Call him an arsehole. Ignore him. Threaten to kill him and you merely prove what he says about your religion. You're being played like a cheap violin.

Stop sniggering at the back Chrisitians, your copy book is far from spotless, is it? The Crusades? The cluster-fucking in this country when the family Tudor couldn't quite make their minds up? The enthusiasm for locking Jews in buildings and burning them to the ground during the Middle Ages? The Inquisition?

Oh, did someone mention Jews? The appalling treatment of the Palestinians? The Old Testament (and that phrase really pisses practicing Jews off) enthusiasm for invading other countries?

You are all shits of the highest order. It just seems to me that Islam is acting the shittiest of them all at present.

No, I'm not saying all Muslims are gun toting maniacs who want to see infidel blood running down the streets. Indeed I know quite a few Muslims, and not one of them, as far as I know, own an assault rifle or bomb making equipment.

It would be nice to see the moderate halfway sensible majority of Islam stand up and slap these arseholes down. Many Germans didn't much care for the National Socialists, but they didn't want to make a fuss, and just sort of got carried along. It was a disaster.

What did we do? Appeased and didn't make a scene. That was a disaster too.

Anyone? No?

Didn't think so.

This is going to get ugly. . .

The One That Is Going On And On And On And On . . .

The story in the news today about Haringey council putting a foster child into the care of the family of one of the wannabe liquid explosive suicide plane bombers has been commented on by a number of bloggers today. Whilst not the focus of today’s rambling, I will pass brief comment.

Haringey are idiots who couldn’t tell their arse from a sky-scraper made of edam and lego. I don’t think we should be surprised at this latest news story. That being said, it is my belief that most people in the intelligence community do not play well with others. I understand why to an extent. Given that these arse-clowns were under surveillance, and seemed fairly committed to the idea of making a plane go bang in spectacular style, it makes perfect sense for the cops and spooks to keep schtum until they have enough evidence to pick these guys up and charge them. That practice is preferable to keeping people locked up for however many days whilst a case is built.

By keeping them under surveillance you can build the case on the hoof whilst making sure the muscle is ready to step in if they make a move before the suspected scheduled time. I would imagine, given the history of Haringey social services, that the big hat in spook circles wasn’t all that enthusiastic about calling Haringey Soc. Serves and telling them that the foster family were connected to these people. That wouldn’t work at all.

That being said, why they thought that the unemployed and seemingly unemployable were suitable foster carers is a mystery to me. Haringey are an easy (and justified) target, but I bet one of their head honchos could pick up some government policy document and say ‘well it says here. . .’

One line hits me square between the eyes:

"Muslim children can only be placed with people of the same faith and the need
to find foster parents could mean that corners were cut in the vetting process."

There are some real issues with that policy.

Firstly, does this mean a child’s cultural heritage trumps considerations over its safety? If so, this is shameful and tantamount to abuse. You could have a loving couple from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who would provide a secure and stable environment for any child, being passed over for a Muslim individual with a fondness for stretching seven year old sphincters. That is madness.

Secondly, does this mean Jewish children can be placed with Christian families? Taoist with Hindu? Is it just the Muslim children who cannot be placed outside their faith? If so, this is shameful and tantamount to abuse. What happens to the kids if there are no beds available with Muslim foster carers? In order to be in foster care, you have to be under a clear and present threat to your wellbeing, are the kids to be returned to an unsafe environment for the want of a Muslim foster family? Or are they to be placed in some home, cold and institutional, where they will feel that they are being punished? Do Haringey council run homes for the Muslims? If not, then where’s the difference to the policy for foster caring? This is bad news for the kids, the non-Muslim community who seemingly can’t be trusted to look after anyone of an Islamic background, and the Muslims themselves because. . .

Thirdly, this means that either the Muslim community demands that children be left in danger or a miserable home rather than be in a comfortable, loving environment, or (as is most likely) some lack-wit has decided that cultural sensitivity is the beginning, middle and end of the consideration, and indirectly tells those who aren’t Muslim they aren’t good enough. Either way mistrust and hatred is going to be the only outcome. Non-Muslims will hate the Muslims as they will see them as insulting, prejudiced and not caring about the kids. The Muslims will hate everyone else for hating them as the siege mentality takes over, and the kids will really hate the ‘liberal’ hand-wringing people at the council for making bloody silly policy which cost them their childhood in part or whole.

But here’s the rub. When last I looked, Muslim people breathe oxygen, drink water and need food to eat. There’s no real difference between them and anyone else. Their faith is an accident of birth. There is no Muslim genome, nothing binds the Bosnian Muslim, the Algerian Muslim, the Bangladeshi Muslim and the Malaysian Muslim beyond their faith. Muslim people come in all different sizes, shapes and colours.

Does this mean that a one year old Muslim kid has to be kept by people of ‘his’ faith? He’s a bloody kid. He could quite easily have been born a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, it is a total and complete lottery. It isn’t HIS faith, it is the faith that has been imposed upon him by his parentage and his society.

That sounds like an impassioned argument about the futility of religion, perhaps with an undertone of bansturbation. It isn’t. I don’t care for religion myself, in my experience each of the three biggies in the mid-East, Europe and Africa seem to espouse values of love, peace, forgiveness and understanding, but those who bang on about it most display those qualities least. I don’t need it in my life.

But here’s the thing, just because I don’t need it in my life, doesn’t mean other people don’t need it in theirs. If they feel they do, then carry on, I sincerely hopes it makes you happy. I will not try to force my lack of faith (although it is more a lack of faith in Man and his organised church, than in God) upon you. I will not seek to kill you because you believe differently to I (this may be because as I have no church to ‘learn’ from, there’s no-one telling me to do it). I will treat you with respect, good manners and politeness. I do this willingly and without passing judgement upon you. In return I ask that you do not try to force your faith upon me, that you do not seek to kill me because I believe differently to you and that you treat me with respect, good manners and politeness and do this willingly and without passing judgement upon me.

On the whole, this arrangement works very well. Down my street in very homogenous Canterbury we have Ahmadiyya Bangladeshis running the grocers, Shia Kurds running the barber, very Christian women running a charity shop and Greek orthodox running the chip shop. All within forty paces of each other. They refrain from smashing in each others windows, which is nice, and will normally change each others banknotes if pound coins start running low. I use all the businesses regularly because they are all nice people and I believe in supporting local commerce.

Very few people would turn purple and start shouting about a Muslim kid in danger of being beaten, raped or killed being moved out of that environment and placed in the care of someone who will give them a nice dinner, a warm bed and a bed-time story. Those that would are detestable, these really are the cheeeldren we should be thinking of.

So what’s the message? On the whole we all get on fine, tolerate and in some circumstances actually show an interest in our differences. Some people through idiocy hate the different as their way is the only way. These people shout loud. Next time you hear an idiot shouting loud, get together, sensible, ‘normal’ people and shout louder. Perhaps that way the idiots will realise they are outnumbered and stop trying to kill us all. Perhaps that way council officials will realise that the policy of putting kids in the foster care of suicide bombers is more offensive to us, that being society, than it is to those who think Muslim people should have their own little world.

I’ll sign off with a quote from a well respected and much loved dramatic piece.

‘Be excellent to each other.’ – Rufus; Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

The One That Is Going To Write To Ofcom. . .

I'm going to sit in on Sunday, waiting for Songs of Praise, just so I can be offended after reading this snivelling whinging guff from the ridiculous self-obsessed sky pixie brigade.

Angry Coronation Street viewers have complained to Ofcom and ITV after a character made "anti-Christian" remarks during an episode on Easter Sunday.

The broadcast watchdog said it received 23 complaints over Ken Barlow referring to the faith as "superstition" and God as a "supernatural being".

Oh for crying out loud, just get a life won't you?

One minute you're bleating about how God is all powerful, created the universe etc, etc, and the next your bellyaching that 'To choose this script on the most holy day in the Christian calendar is insulting and greatly offensive.'

Well isn't that the ultimate in offence by proxy? Taking offence that a fictional character said something you don't agree with about a character who is either a; fictional themselves, or b; omnipotent.

So either it doesn't matter, or God who is all powerful really won't give a flying fuck.

And besides, if Easter Day is the holiest day in the Christian calendar, then why are you spending it watching Coronation Street, you hypocritical fuckers?

What a bunch of arseclowns.

The One That Is Talking About The Beautiful Game. . .

A couple of football things today, an oddity, although any of you who know me will probably be amazed it has taken me this long to write about football.

Firstly, I'm very sad to see Luton lose their football league status today. They are a club with a proud 89 year history of league football, including a window of huge over-acheivement in the 1980's. They've been very shoddily treated by the Football League, an organisation which is supposed to safeguard the game and clubs, who have penalised the club for the failings of previous regimes.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

I am especially sorry for Luton as they battled against the machinations of John Gurney, a thoroughly despicable individual who did his level best to kill the club off whilst talking about moving them from their Kennilworth Road ground to a site off the M1, which would, he said, host an F1 race track. Gurney was (and possibly still is) involved in another football club which is very close to my heart and also came perilously close to killing off Bedford Rugby Club.

I really hope Luton bounce back from this latest set back. They've had to bounce back a few times recently, so it isn't as if they haven't had the practice. Good luck, Hatters.

The second item relates to demands made by John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. Is there anything worse than a holier-than-thou cleric? According to Pravda, Church leaders want the government to use Sunday trading laws to prevent the staging of football matches, and Dr. Sentamu wants the church founded clubs to remember their roots.

I am really getting very tired of this constant whining from clerics. 'It's not fair, no-one is listening to us anymore.' Seems to be the moan from the Lords Spiritual.

Look, you've had a free run, even a controlling interest for a thousand bloody years now. You have criminalised, invaded and killed those who dared to disagree with you. You made people attend your churches. You took 10% of their income or produce. You kept people uneducated. You have raised cities to the ground. Your teachings have condemned thousands to a life of disease. Your entire reign over this country is a litany of misery, hypocrisy and bigotry. You are in no position to act as a moral compass, no position at all.

Now, how many people attend football, and how many people attend church? What are the aggregate attendance figures over a 12 month period?

Sorry Bish, the people have spoken, and you are not even as relevant as 22 men kicking a ball around a field. You've had your run, and it is over.

The One That Doesn't Understand The Problem . . .

Why are people so obsessed with other peoples' relationships? I remember the very earnest, and in some cases reactionary debate over 'civil partnerships.' I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

I'm straight so would never be interested in marrying a man. If two men or two women decide that they love each other and want to make a commitment to each other, well you're not hurting me, so if it makes you happy, then go ahead. I wish you the best of luck.

I was astounded that there was even a referendum on the subject in California over the subject, one which threw same sex marriages out. Why? What possible harm are they doing? If you don't agree with marrying someone of the same sex, then don't do it.

One of the problems is that marriage is seen as the preserve of the religious establishment, and the problem with the religious establishment is that God has told them what should and should not be done. It's difficult to argue with what people say God wants, that is the only response in what quickly becomes a circular argument:

Me: Why shouldn't gay people get married?
Them: Because God says so.
Me: But they're not doing any harm.
Them: Yes they are, they're upsetting God.
Me: Well how do you know this?
Them: It says so, in this book.
Me: Well how do you know this is the word of God?
Them: Because God says it is.

And you can go on like that, well, until Judgement Day. I hold the opinion that it is my soul, I'll take decisions regarding it and deal with the consequences myself.

During the debate about same sex marriages I remember a lot of politicians hiding behind the religious argument when the real issue might have been that they just didn't like gay people very much and I think this is evident by the fact that in this country, at least, gay people still can't get married, they can only have civil partnerships. Why stop short? Straight couples can get married without any religious involvement at all, so why should it be any different for gay people?

So it was with interest that I read this story on Al-Beeb today. In a nutshell, Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for Community Cohesion (don't even get me started, what in the wide, wide world of sports is that?) had decreed that cultural sensitivity has meant politicians have neglected to discuss polygamy.

She wants all religious marriages to be registered to prevent men marrying more than one woman.

Well, why? What's the problem? Where has this value judgement come from? Why should people only be allowed to marry one person? That may be the majority Christian view, but is that any reason to impose that value on everyone else?

There will be those who say with a hint of indignation that we are a Christian country and should operate as such. Fine, then have the guts to ask for what you really want, a theocracy. I understand religious observance to be complete, you either believe and follow or you don't, there's no 'I support the teachings of the Church except that bit, and that, and some of that, oh, and I don't agree with that at all'. To be faithful means you submit yourself entirely to the will of God. So let's have a theocracy then, let's ban Islam, throw out the Hindus, lock the Jews in a big old warehouse and burn it to the ground, enforce attendance at church every Sunday. Let's take a leaf out of the Saudis' book and have brigades of religious police touring the streets, sweeping anyone up they decide has broken the religious moral code, Lord knows the political police are nearly there.

Look, arseholes, doesn't matter if it's a man with women or a woman with men, there's nothing wrong with polygamy, as long all those involved are adults, aware of the situation and enter into it of their own free will. Who are they hurting? Nobody. So just keep your bloody nose out of what doesn't concern you.

We either live in a country with personal and religious freedom, or we don't. It can't be done by degrees. You can't say 'you have personal freedom unless you want to marry another man or want to live with more than one woman.' That isn't freedom, and don't pretend it is, because I understand that God really hates liars.

The One That Is A Little Confused. . .

In my last article, a correspondent called 'Sarah' posted the following comment (I suspect I am not alone in this):

Please, please, please feature this post. I am not a god botherer but I found this mint. I suspect that even the bible bashers have had enough of 'free speech' when it means in a Christian Country even the Christians voice is un heard. I reckon they are fighting back. Eye for an Eye etc. Lets see how many complaints this gets. Bearing in mind it's not just Christians, it's a group of The Christian party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church. I have no God but if the 'Righteous' can do it so can any one else. Lets see how much coverage the Bollocking Bastard Cunts and the Daily wail give this one.

She then posts a link to this story in the Daily Mail.

The crux of it is that in response to the bus ad campaign run by the Humanists, the above named organisations have clubbed together and put an ad campaign together in the same milieu that reads 'There definitely is a God, so join the Christian party and enjoy your life.'

I must admit that I may be suffering a dense patch this evening, because I don't really understand what Sarah is getting at.

First of all she states that 'bible bashers have had enough of free speech', I'm not going to argue with that. Religion is by its nature dogmatic and the whole history of religion is littered with incidents of people speaking their mind being put to death in a variety of interesing ways as a result.

She claims that in a Christian country, the Christians' voice is not heard. Well, I don't agree with that, whenever the Arch-Bishops of York and Canterbury open their mouths (which happens with depressing regularity) it is plastered all over the media. The very fact that Christian organisations are at liberty to place this advert shows that their voice is very much heard. Whether it is heeded is a different matter, and one for the individual.

She then says that they are 'fighting back'. Fighting back against what? The Christian Church has an important place in our society. I don't for a minute think it should, I support the complete divorce of Church and State, I'm perfectly happy for people to practice whatever religion they want. I am not happy with unelected clerics voting on law in this country. It is the imposition of a belief system I do not subscribe to and I do not think it fair to have one sect of one belief in control to the exclusion of the others.

Then, 'Lets see how many complaints this gets'. None I would have thought. Only believers in God would complain about an advert calling His existence into doubt. For non-believers they will look at an advert that says 'There definitely is a God' in the same way that they would look at adverts saying 'There definitely is a Father Christmas' or 'There definitely is a Tooth Fairy'. They just won't care. That is once you discount the professional offendees, but I couldn't care less about them, they'll complain about any assertation.

I think the big difference is that a significant proportion of the religiously active want to persuade non-believers to believe. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is their duty to save these peoples' souls, very few atheists try to convert the believers to their cause. I would hope that people like me (my views on the Church are quite clear on these pages, God I have no problem with) accept other peoples' beliefs on the condition that they don't try to force me to comply or use their belief structure to otherwise effect my life.

I guess what I'm saying is that I truly believe in freedom of speech. If you want to say you believe in God, then fine, knock yourself out. If you want to say you don't, then the same applies. The same can be said of politics. Where the problem comes is when people are imprisoned, tortured and put to death for expressing a view different from the status quo, we've seen it all too often in both spheres of religion and politics. Thankfully in this country we've moved away from persecution regarding the former. As for the latter, well, perhaps this post by Guthrum over at Old Holborn's place will give cause for alarm.

No flame wars or arguments, but if you read this Sarah, I'd be grateful if you'd comment to make sure I haven't completely misunderstood your points.

The One That Is Glad Someone Is Making Sure I Can Sleep Safely In My Bed At Night. . .

Phew. Thank God for that.

I've been very worried. Whilst I'm far from convinced that man has a major part to play in climate change, (indeed I'm not entirely sure the climate is warming, Xmas in the North East US/Maritime Canadian provinces, anyone?) it is true that over the last 100 years we have done some shocking and idiotic things to our planet.

The destruction of the South American rainforest could have very bad results, it could lead to the extinction of a number of animals, birds and insects, some yet to be discovered, not to mention flora that could prove useful in drugs development, it means the destruction of the way of life of aboriginal communities that have lived quite happily in leafy isolation for thousands of years and it means we'll still have to put up with Sting generally getting on everyone's tits and producing albums of lute music. It is a bad thing.

However it pales into insignificance when compared to the threat posed to our way of life by consenting men putting their willies up each other's bottoms. Well, that's what the Pope says.

He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.

Well, I'll put aside the God bit for now. I've said before, if I was God, those who run organised religions and claim to know what He wants and speak for Him, would be right up the top of the smiting list. Self destruction? Certainly. Where will we start? Slavery? Hatred? Wars which still have religion as the catalyst? How about repression in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Saudi, Iran, China and a host of others? No, good old Pope Benedict gets right to the heart of the matter by saying self-destruction is brought about by a bit of bum sex.

I've never indulged myself. My arse is strictly a one-way street, but if it makes you happy, then carry on, it's not doing me any harm. The same goes for you ladies, if you want to take a close interest in the workings of another lady, that's fine.

People have been doing this sort of thing to each other before the Christian church existed and we're still here. If God really was concerned about it, I'm sure He would have taken some action by now.

So, Popey, why not get your own house in order first? Why not take some proper, radical action about the systematic sexual abuse of children perpetrated by your organisation? The old joke has it that Priest stands for Paedophile Resident In Every Small Town. I'm much more concerned about the harm done to unwilling or co-erced participants in this.

When push comes to shove, what two consenting adults get up to with each other is nobody else's business, as long as no third party is being harmed. That's harmed, not offended, by the way. It certainly isn't the business of some old member of the Nazi Youth who has swapped one ugly totalitarian auhoritarian regime for another.

Let's hope we see Stephen Fry deliver his own festive message, (this is a celebration of the winter solstice, I'm sure I read somewhere that the Romans held the census in the summer, so old JC is probably a Cancer) where he warns that old celibate Germans with ridiculous dress sense are a big threat to humanity.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You religious lot have had it. You are corrupt, irrelevant and discredited. You've had a good run, but it is now time to go. So why not be good chaps and fuck off and leave us alone, eh?

The One That Thinks It Should Be Left Where It Is. . .

Artist Sarah Maple is causing a bit of a stir with her exhibition being displayed at Rolling Stones' Ronnie Wood's gallery 'Scream'. The artist is of mixed religious heritage and apparently juxtaposes her Western Christian side with her Asian Muslim side. One of the images in her exhibition is a picture of her in traditional Muslim garb and cradling a piglet.

The professional theist-offendees are out in force.

Already, Mokhtar Badri, the vice-president of the Muslim Association of Britain, tells Mandrake that his organisation plans to visit the SaLon Gallery, in Notting Hill, west London, to demand that it remove Maple’s painting when it exhibits it next week.

Well, excuse me, who the hell are you to make such demands?

Oh it offends you does it?

Well, how about I pop around your Mosque (and I'm not singling you out due to your Islamic faith, I'll quite happily attend every Church and Synagogue in the area) and demand that you stop preaching your brand of intolerance, hatred, bigotry and misery spreading? Because I can assure you that I find it offensive in the extreme.

But you wouldn't stop spreading it, would you? No. Thought not.

What is it about these religious types that makes them think they must not be offended and they have carte-blanche to make demands and outrageous accusations whenever the mood takes them.

I find religious dogma and indoctrination offensive, therefore I stay away from venues that I know will expose me to this. If you find this artwork offensive, stay away. Don't make the argument that its very existence is offensive, as I could say the same about you. Rather than just making death threats, I'll ignore you for the irrelevance you are, try doing the same about this artist.

One thing I will add, if I were God and saw the hate and misery peddled by man in my name, I'd be going really old (testament) school and getting my smiting trousers on. . .

The One That Finds It Amazing That This Group Is Given Such Respect. . .

There's this group, they think women are second class citizens, would criminalise homosexuality, seem to think that they are beyond any criticism and that we should all listen to them.

BNP? National Front? Combat 18? No. A collection of Anglican Clerics.

Oooh, ooooh, I've got an idea.

Fuck off you illiberal bunch of hate driven, misery peddling fucktards. I'm glad you are a private members club, because I'd hate to see you running a country. What an odious collection of intolerant self-absorbed wankers.

Here's another idea. Let's take all these pricks, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever, all those pricks who say that they know what God wants, and what he says. Let's find a nice island in the pacific with no inhabitants and then they can kill each other in the name of their God (who apparently loves everyone). We need do nothing more, think of it as an ecclesiastical version of Lord of the Flies.

I've said it before, you lot are an irrelevance in today's world. You've had the best part of 2000 years in charge and fucked it right up. Remind me, why should I give any attention or credence to what you have to say?

Bastards.

The One That Wonders What They Expect. . .

How's this for a news story:

Duran Duran fans have accused the government of favouring AC/DC and other bands whilst only paying "lip service" to New Romanticism. A report commissioned by the Simon LeBon fan club says ministers failed to understand the full range of Duran Duran's work, that the government has marginalised the band and called for a change of attitude.

It's a bloody ridiculous story, isn't it? Yes, you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Of course, if you substitue Duran Duran with Christianity, AC/DC with Islam (although I'd prefer it if both were the other way around. 'Cardinal to replace Catholicism with Led Zeppelin' shouts the headline, great! Where do I sign up?) then you have the story in the press today.

Well, why? Why should the government be asking the church, of whatever faith, what they think about policy? What the hell is it to do with them? They don't even listen to the electorate, and to be honest all you Bishops, Imams, Rabbis and anyone else, your views really don't matter. It is like asking the Guildford Am-Dram society their views on renewing Trident. As an organisation they are, or at least should be, a political irrelevance.

Let's face facts guys, taken as an average you've had about two thousand years haven't you? For a long period of time you WERE the governance, the legislature, the 'moral compass', and you have squandered your time. You have spent centuries bickering, killing each other, killing your own followers, indulging in schisms and plots, oppressing, spreading misery and disease, and then, you have the total fucking cheek to whine and bitch because the government don't take heed of your moral bleatings? Why the fuck should they? Your track record isn't great, is it?

We still suffer the Lords Spiritual sitting in the upper chamber, and they are only Protestant, CofE clergy, no Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, bloody Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (wiki it, it rules) and yet you moan at a lack of involvement in debate and government?

Piss off, you are not open to debate, you are prescriptive, dictatorial and when push comes to shove will simply state that anyone opposing you will be damned to the eternal fires of hell. Not really a structured argument is it? If I were God, I'd start sending thunderbolts down on to your churches, temples, mosques, synangogues and whatever else now, in response to the evil you have done in my name.

EDIT:
And here's an addendum; The Chief Constable of Notts Police, Steve Green (Steve? Give me strength), has basically demanded a ban on the sale of cheap alcohol. Newsflash, Stevie boy, you police, because WE, as society, want you to. You don't get to make policy either, on detention of terrorists, ID Cards, alcohol, anything, you get to enforce the laws WE want, not the ones YOU want. I appreciate our government makes your job as a copper pretty much impossible, but still. In fact, most of your constabulary probably consider you to have only a fleeting relationship with reality and your 'troops', I bet you call them that, don't you?